Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 

<snipped>

> Take this example:
> 
>   testPPIf
>         true ifTrue:[5]
>              ifFalse:[nil] "Nothing now, but I may want to add
>                                 something later."
> 
> Ok, hardly wonderful style, but not *insane* either :)
> 
> Pretty printed:
> 
>    testPPIf
>         true
>                 ifTrue: [5]
> 
> Uhm....
> 
> Now *that's* crazy!
> 
> Granted, it's semantically equivalent, but so?
> 
>   testPPIf: aBool
>         ^aBool ifTrue:[5]
>                 ifFalse:[nil]
> 
> seems semantically equivalent to:
> 
>   testPPIf: aBool
>         ^ aBool
>                 ifTrue: [5]
> 

> But so is:
> 
>   testPPIf: aBool
>         aBool ifTrue:[^5]
>                 ifFalse:[^nil]
> 
> (ok, perhaps only in this simple example).
> 
> And in that case PPing gets:
> 
>   testPPIf: aBool
>         aBool
>                 ifTrue: [^ 5]
>                 ifFalse: [^ nil]

Fully correct!

*Wrong* would be
    testPPIf: aBool
          aBool
                  ifTrue: [^ 5]
, since this would return self.


Greetings,

Stephan

> 
> <sigh/> It adds a bit of magic to the system that's kind of worrisome
> (espeically the killing of comments).
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan Parsia.

-- 
Stephan Rudlof (sr at evolgo.de)
   "Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis.
    You can't simply say, 'Today I will be brilliant.'"
    -- Kirk, "The Ultimate Computer", stardate 4731.3